Have I missed something?

I need some non-conspiracy insight here on this piece I just watched/read.

MARK SHIELDS: I think, first of all, that you have a choice. You can be a strong speaker. Nancy Pelosi was a strong speaker. Newt Gingrich was a
strong speaker. And that is, you have a very tightly controlled legislative forum and very few amendments even entertained.

And what you put together, and as we have in recent years, is two armies in the House of Representatives. You've got the Democratic army and the
Republican army. And if you have got more Democrats, you can get all your army to vote for it, and the Republican votes against it, and you pass
it.

What we saw this week was, all of the sudden, with the F-35 engine vote, 100 Democrats, more than 100 Democrats and more than 100 Republicans voting
for it. I mean, that's...

They mention new world order, but in a sense that it is understood what is meant. Have I missed something? Is there a generalized definition beyond
conpiracy? Is it where both (all) parties work together--instead of being combative for the sake of fighting--to get things done? That's the context
I take from the article.

I think NWO may have started as a good concept (Has anyone read "The Anatomy of Peace" by Emery Reeves?) and has been morphed by greed and lust for
control and power over time. I know a lot of background on different theories, so I don't need that lesson... but if anyone has any opinions I'd
love to hear them.

I don't know of any alternate diffinition of NWO,of coarse that doesn't mean there isn't one.
I think that the Idea of a New World Order may have originally been a good idea. We have not always been a world of nation states.In fact this idea
is fairly new and probably a bad idea.It is devisive and causes many rediculous conflicts.Geez we are all humans.We may hold different views on
religion and I admit that this causes many problems.However don't you think that these religious problems would be easier to resolve if there weren't
nationalism to promote more devisivness.I believe that nationalism was originally instituted in order to promote the divisiveness we see every where
today,as in divide and conquer.I offer this link www.mapsofwar.com... I found this on another thread and was impressed with
how it shows empires and how far they spread and then suddenly it shows the division of an empire into nation states.My apologies to the op of the
thread I borrowed this from and my thanks as I sent the link to several friends to illistrate my point about nationalism.

edit on 2/19/2011 by
lonegurkha because: Lord please help me to learn to spell

My guess is that there is very little differance between the CT version of NWO and the mainstream version... just a point of view thing. The
mainstream version views it as a political paradigm of unity in politics where everyone marches in lockstep with the leadership. The CT version views
it as a paradigm of facism and iron fist control over all aspects of a citizen's daily life..

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.